Ultroneism

Self Insert "People can really believe anything these days!" - Ismism This page is meant to represent LordCompost's political views. Please do not make any major edits without their permission.

Ultroneism
Art by Hysteria.
Basic Information
Aliases	Add your own if you so desire Anarcho-Uism Epitome of post-hegelian blandness ok i changed my mind, pseud ass
Alignments	Lib Unity Culturally Far-Left Individualists Nihilists Queer
Ideological Influences
Influenced by	Egoism Pragmatism Political Nihilism Post-Civilisationism Post-Structuralism
Character Information
Likes	Uniqueness Appropriation Negation Decadence Usefulness
Dislikes	Essence Shift Collection Fixity Hypostasis

‟Through the heaven of civilization, the human being seeks to isolate himself from the world, to break its hostile power.”

– The Unique and Its Property, Max Stirner

Howdy, I'm LordCompost.

TL:DR, I believe that [insert issue here] is simply due to our servile and religious relation towards [said issue] treating it as sacred, necessary, unquestionable, etc., - Instead I see these [issues] as merely transitory, revisable, pragmatic, and contingent phenomena which individuals, groups, or even 'societies' are able to "freely" transform.

Summary

See my Philosophy page.

Writings

Links to my Substack.

The Shears of “Civilization”

The "Origin" of Civilisation

The Cultural Industrial Complex

On the Issue of Negation

Political Obligation

Totality and Autonomy

Postmodern Paganism

Relations

CarrotsRppl2
How is 'The State and Its Property' illegitimate? If you truly held to the principle that property is individual protection, then isn't the state currently the most powerful entity that protects its property? As such, according to you, it is your perfect society already.

Bourgeoisie Destroyer
I am sure you have read something, but merely returning and subscribing to 'ancient' philosophy does not make one intelligent, nor does it advance any knowledge or let one overcome modern problems simply because thought has developed and overcome older philosophy.

Killer Kitty
Question: If politics was a net negative on your country would you overcome it and bring politics into its nullity? Or would you hold close to it and always remain bound to your highest truth? 'No,' you would say, 'politics cannot be done away with; it is necessary, it is fundamental, it is more important than us.' Liberalism, Fascism? Politics...

Kosciuszkovagr
No writings...

Xx godisfaithful xx
Your similarity to postmodern/post-anarchism with your rejection of an 'Arche' or grounding principle is fascinating. This is why I am surprised you disagree with postmodernism so much. To complement this, I suggest reading 'Romantic Anarche: The Philosophical and Literary Anarchism of William Godwin'. However, in your thought, I find the assurance of human rights to be the primary ground of politics; it seems to be a slight contradiction?

HysteriaThought
It is quite strange that through all your insights and some I agree with quite earnestly, post-rationalism is a particular favourite; one then runs into your quite tame and sacred economics. Economic freedom is the same as 'religious freedom' - not freedom from the economy, but the freedom of the economy; 'Only the freedom from intermediaries is supposed to be expressed in this, the freedom from mediating priests, the abolition of the “laity,” and so, the direct and unmediated relationship to religion or God... for one who’s “economically free,” the market is a matter of sacred earnestness; it is his heart’s affair, his chief affair, his own affair.'

Anthony Bax
I am still yet to understand the existence of altruistic egoism. Where in Stirner does he deny altruism? Where does he deny saying that the egoists are opposed to being social, to helping others? He explicitly, in several places, argues that individuals gain enjoyment from supporting and loving others. Also, why are there all these shoulds? When egoists are social, supportive, associative, etc., why does this entail the conclusion that sharing is a moral ought, and that collectivisation is a sacred duty? It is alien to my will, something that can always be separated from the social ego unless it really did become a complete collective will, something Stirner specifically critiques.

Comments

LordCompost - Please comment here if you have questions.

• - Why do you like appropriation?
  • LordCompost - It is merely the egoistic, or 'might' based version of property; "If he appropriates it, then not only the earth, but also the right to it, belongs to him. This is egoistic right, i.e., it is right for me, therefore it is right." Whatever is in your power (not Nietzschean, but merely capability); i.e., if you can do it, exert yourself.